HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Unweighted Lottery

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2005, 01:01 PM
  #76
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Well, some of the quotes are interesting:

"I am really serious when I say this; if a team like the Devils, Islanders, Wings, or Leafs get Crosby, and we end up with like the 20th pick, I will stop watching hockey."

"It's just too much for someone like me, whose faith in this sport has been in rapid decline for the last seven years. I barely felt that hockey itch we all get around mid- to late- August when we know our sport is preparing to rev up the engines. And watching a team like the Devils step up to the podium to select Crosby would be the end for me."

"I'm not going to stop watching hockey because of an unweighted lottery, but again I'll have to ask myself whether the game still appeals to me, or I'm just hanging on for sentimental reasons."

"If you are wavering, how about the casual fan? I'm with you. Thirty-five years of season tickets and I to will debate how much more can I take?"

All because of one player. If Crosby wasn't in the draft, I truly wonder if such a big deal would be made.
Maybe... in any case it doesn't matter, because he is. I'd love a shot at him, but I'm more concerned about NYR stuck picking 20-30, then I am about whether or not they get Crosby...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:01 PM
  #77
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Besides, the Rangers are better off if they stop with their superstar-centric approach to hockey. It's obviously failed them of late.

It's not too late for the Rangers to have a team concept.
what is this condescending garbage? maybe it's just me and you weren't addressing us, the fans, with that, but you can just piss off if you were. we don't need to be told how the rangers should be run, we're more aware of their faults than any other fans in the league

Quote:
All because of one player. If Crosby wasn't in the draft, I truly wonder if such a big deal would be made.
no, even if this wasn't the crosby draft, i'd be pissed about a no weighted lottery. i don't really even expect the rangers to win the lottery, but they should pick in the top 10, top 15 at the very least. unweighted lotteries greatly reduces their chances of that.

as for the rest of your crap, it's a pretty weak argument when your main point is "oh the rangers spent a lot of money". why don't you go cry about it?

Levitate is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:06 PM
  #78
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Do you both agree that the Rangers would have been bad last year, and had almost no chance to win the Cup ??

Do you both agree that the Flyers would have been very good and one of the 5 best teams in the NHL ??

Do you both agree that the Rangers would have had less than a 10% chance of getting Sidney Crosby ??

Do you both agree that the Flyers would have had almost no chance to get Sidney Crosby ??
I agree that the Rangers would have missed the playoffs and the Flyers would have made it. As such, the Rangers should have the better drafting position.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:07 PM
  #79
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Isn't it also interesting how Zopust has failed to indicate which team he is a fan of.
Interestingly, I was once a Rangers fan back in the 80's and early 90's, before my hometown of Ottawa got a team. I was called the "Lone Ranger" because no one else shared my enthusiasm for Greschner, Kisio, Granato and Sandstrom, Amonte, Weight, Leetch and Co.

Ottawa fans had to go through a rather abysmal stretch with 24 points in 1992-1993, 37 points in 1993-1994, 23 points in the strike-shortened 1994-1995, and 41 points in 1995-1996. The expansion draft Ottawa endured allowed the most protected players in any expansion draft during the last 15 years, leading to a mediocre crop where the best players picked were Peter Sidorkiewicz and Sylvain Turgeon.

Ottawa also "won" the Alexandre Daigle Cup, in having the worst team in the league, gaining the "privilege" of drafting an undisputed future superstar and leaving Chris Pronger to the Whalers. This was also widely recognized to have led to the introduction of the lottery system.

So I really don't feel your pain. You had the misfortune of the curse but that ended in 1994.

Besides, great talent can be found later on in the draft. Of Ottawa's RW trio, Havlat was drafted 26th, Hossa was drafted 12th and Alfredsson was drafted 133rd. Former Sen Rachunek was drafted 229th overall.

I just don't buy all this "the sky is falling" crap. Crosby could tear his knee in his rookie season and that would be that.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:08 PM
  #80
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Joe
Reason being the Caps, Pens and Rangers didn't have great season for several years now but have gotten their top picks for those bad seasons. Last draft the Caps got Ovenchkov (MS), Pens got the 2nd pick and Rangers got Montoya. That season is over with and the teams who didn't do well got their top picks. Why should the same teams get top picks again for the 2nd straight draft? They already had their draft for doing bad they shouldn't be given another chance with a weighted lottery. Lots of things can happen in a season or two especially getting top 10 picks for a few straight years. Give every team the same shot at the top pick and after this season they can go back to the normal draft selection process.
So what you are saying is that the draft for this year should be different then the one held in all organized sports since the draft was invented? That this year we should ignore the teams that rightfully should have the higher picks and reward the teams that have been making the playoffs? How wonderfull.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:11 PM
  #81
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
So what you are saying is that the draft for this year should be different then the one held in all organized sports since the draft was invented? That this year we should ignore the teams that rightfully should have the higher picks and reward the teams that have been making the playoffs? How wonderfull.
Well, this past year has been different than any held in all organized sports since the draft has been invented.

No other league has had a lockout that lasted an entire season, as far as I know, at least with respect to the North-American major leagues.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:14 PM
  #82
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Zopust]The Rangers have had ample opportunity to improve their team through the draft over the years and have generally bungled it.

You think it's unfair that the Rangers don't get a better chance at Crosby? Boo hoo.
[QUOTE]

What utter drivel. Who cares who they drafted and did not draft? None of that matters. The only thing that matters is how a team performed. Drafts are set up to help those teams that have missed the playoffs moreso than those that have not.
And for the record, this is not about Crosby. This is about drafting position.

"Please. Most people think it's pretty unfair that the Rangers can virtually sign whomever over the age of 30 they want to whatever price they want. "

Again, what on Earth does this have to do with the draft? And, presumably you were about to name the Flyers, Colarado, Dallas & Detroit as having unfair advantages as well?

"The fact that the Rangers haven't really improved despite their payroll just goes to show how awkward the organization has been run in the last 5-10 years."

And this has what to do with the draft?

"I don't think the Rangers should be rewarded for their absolutely abysmal management. They already had a draft with their high placement, and Montoya was the pick. "

So are we now to have a system that places limits on the amount of time teams can recieve high draft picks?

"Besides, the Rangers are better off if they stop with their superstar-centric approach to hockey. It's obviously failed them of late."

And again I ask, what does this have to do with drafting position?

"It's not too late for the Rangers to have a team concept."

What brilliant analysis.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:15 PM
  #83
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
Maybe... in any case it doesn't matter, because he is. I'd love a shot at him, but I'm more concerned about NYR stuck picking 20-30, then I am about whether or not they get Crosby...
I agree. Personally, I never factored Crosby into the equation. While it would be nice, we all know the Rangers track record with Lady Luck. They're seldom on speaking terms. My concern is watching a perennial cup contending team walk away with ther 1st overall pick, while the Rangers are picking somewhere in the cellar. The Rangers miss the playoffs -yawn- for an 8th straight season. But ultimately I'm at the end of my rope with hockey. This is the deciding factor. Either the Rangers jump start their rebuild with this draft, or they take it in the mouth as always and extend this dry spell by at least another 3-4 seasons while these project-prospect mature. The game is boring, the team stink. Just not enough there to keep me interested.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:15 PM
  #84
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,148
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Interestingly, I was once a Rangers fan back in the 80's and early 90's, before my hometown of Ottawa got a team. I was called the "Lone Ranger" because no one else shared my enthusiasm for Greschner, Kisio, Granato and Sandstrom, Amonte, Weight, Leetch and Co.

Ottawa fans had to go through a rather abysmal stretch with 24 points in 1992-1993, 37 points in 1993-1994, 23 points in the strike-shortened 1994-1995, and 41 points in 1995-1996. The expansion draft Ottawa endured allowed the most protected players in any expansion draft during the last 15 years, leading to a mediocre crop where the best players picked were Peter Sidorkiewicz and Sylvain Turgeon.

Ottawa also "won" the Alexandre Daigle Cup, in having the worst team in the league, gaining the "privilege" of drafting an undisputed future superstar and leaving Chris Pronger to the Whalers. This was also widely recognized to have led to the introduction of the lottery system.

So I really don't feel your pain. You had the misfortune of the curse but that ended in 1994.

Besides, great talent can be found later on in the draft. Of Ottawa's RW trio, Havlat was drafted 26th, Hossa was drafted 12th and Alfredsson was drafted 133rd. Former Sen Rachunek was drafted 229th overall.

I just don't buy all this "the sky is falling" crap. Crosby could tear his knee in his rookie season and that would be that.
Not looking for you to feel my pain. But since you're a Sens fan, we all know where you're coming from.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:15 PM
  #85
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Out of curiosity..

baseball did not finish the 1995[?] season, I believe...anyone know how that draft was handled?

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:15 PM
  #86
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Well, this past year has been different than any held in all organized sports since the draft has been invented.
The ONLY way this could be relevant is if you are prepared to defend the position that had there been a season, that the Flyers, Colarado, Detroit, Ottawa, etc...would have been lottery picks.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:17 PM
  #87
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Interestingly, I was once a Rangers fan back in the 80's and early 90's, before my hometown of Ottawa got a team. I was called the "Lone Ranger" because no one else shared my enthusiasm for Greschner, Kisio, Granato and Sandstrom, Amonte, Weight, Leetch and Co.

Ottawa fans had to go through a rather abysmal stretch with 24 points in 1992-1993, 37 points in 1993-1994, 23 points in the strike-shortened 1994-1995, and 41 points in 1995-1996. The expansion draft Ottawa endured allowed the most protected players in any expansion draft during the last 15 years, leading to a mediocre crop where the best players picked were Peter Sidorkiewicz and Sylvain Turgeon.

Ottawa also "won" the Alexandre Daigle Cup, in having the worst team in the league, gaining the "privilege" of drafting an undisputed future superstar and leaving Chris Pronger to the Whalers. This was also widely recognized to have led to the introduction of the lottery system.

So I really don't feel your pain. You had the misfortune of the curse but that ended in 1994.

Besides, great talent can be found later on in the draft. Of Ottawa's RW trio, Havlat was drafted 26th, Hossa was drafted 12th and Alfredsson was drafted 133rd. Former Sen Rachunek was drafted 229th overall.

I just don't buy all this "the sky is falling" crap. Crosby could tear his knee in his rookie season and that would be that.
This isn't about Crosby from my point of view. The Rangers are one of the worst teams in the NHL. Period, end of statement. They, just like Ottawa in the past, need players to develop and compete in the NHL. If the proposal goes through with every team getting an equal chance, then we are not guaranteed a spot until number 30! Yes, we could be number 1, 10, 20 or 30. But why should the have's get better and a team that has crapped the bed be penalized because there wasn't a season played???

I'm sorry but I when we're paying ridiculous amounts of money for old, crappy, free agents, people were complaining. Now, all we ask for is a spot in the top ten to hopefully draft a better player than the 30th spot, and people are still complaining about the Rangers.

I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't!

Jackson Ranger is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:18 PM
  #88
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
The ONLY way this could be relevant is if you are prepared to defend the position that had there been a season, that the Flyers, Colarado, Detroit, Ottawa, etc...would have been lottery picks.
Wrong. You have to defend the position that the Flyers, Colorado, Detroit, Ottawa etc. would not be lottery picks.

Now, let's see some absolute proof about results for a season that never happened.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:20 PM
  #89
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
I can understand being miffed if you don't get a high pick.

I just don't think it would be enough to make me quit watching hockey altogether.

There was talk earlier of having a "snake" draft. It's still a possibility if the draft is unweighted.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:26 PM
  #90
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Wrong. You have to defend the position that the Flyers, Colorado, Detroit, Ottawa etc. would not be lottery picks.

Now, let's see some absolute proof about results for a season that never happened.
OK, how about this to keep everything "fair". Each team keeps three players, the rest go into a disbursement draft and every team has a fair shot at these players and the draft eligible players.

Seems fair enough considering the Flyers and Devils had such a bad year last year!

Jackson Ranger is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:29 PM
  #91
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Ranger
OK, how about this to keep everything "fair". Each team keeps three players, the rest go into a disbursement draft and every team has a fair shot at these players and the draft eligible players.

Seems fair enough considering the Flyers and Devils had such a bad year last year!
I'm not sure if Toronto's Geriatric Hospital would be too impressed. They'd lose most of their business.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:31 PM
  #92
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Wrong. You have to defend the position that the Flyers, Colorado, Detroit, Ottawa etc. would not be lottery picks.

Now, let's see some absolute proof about results for a season that never happened.
No offense, but are you kidding me? There is no penultimate proof, however, there are more than enough indicators that favor me and do nothing for your argument. To say that just becuase there was no season, that chances are Colarado would have had a worse record than the Rangers is utterly ludicrous. I can point to prior years and the current talent on those teams. What can you bring to the table?

Your inability and unwillingness to defend your point of view, just points out how weak your position is.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:36 PM
  #93
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No offense, but are you kidding me? There is no penultimate proof, however, there are more than enough indicators that favor me and do nothing for your argument. To say that just becuase there was no season, that chances are Colarado would have had a worse record than the Rangers is utterly ludicrous. I can point to prior years and the current talent on those teams. What can you bring to the table?
In 2001-2002, the Carolina Hurricanes finished first in their division with 35 wins and 91 points. The following season, they finished last in their division with 22 wins and 61 points.

There's some prior years for you.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:39 PM
  #94
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I agree that the Rangers would have missed the playoffs and the Flyers would have made it. As such, the Rangers should have the better drafting position.
Couldn't answer all four questions ???

John Flyers Fan is online now  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:41 PM
  #95
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,148
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
In 2001-2002, the Carolina Hurricanes finished first in their division with 35 wins and 91 points. The following season, they finished last in their division with 22 wins and 61 points.

There's some prior years for you.
True I just turned 30 and my memory ain't what it used to be but I don't recall the Canes ever being considered a perenial Cup contender. Or even a lock for the playoffs.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:45 PM
  #96
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
True I just turned 30 and my memory ain't what it used to be but I don't recall the Canes ever being considered a perenial Cup contender. Or even a lock for the playoffs.
I guess they would have been cheated if there had been a lockout back in 2002-2003 given that their team would have had an unrealistically high ranking based on the prior season's stats.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:47 PM
  #97
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,148
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
I guess they would have been cheated if there had been a lockout back in 2002-2003 given that their team would have had an unrealistically high ranking based on the prior season's stats.

I can't work with things that didn't happen.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:48 PM
  #98
Zopust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I can't work with things that didn't happen.
Last time I checked, the 2004-2005 season didn't happen.

You seem prepared to work from a composite of one, extrapolating from the previous season. Interesting.

Zopust is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:52 PM
  #99
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
If Crosby wasn't in the draft, I truly wonder if such a big deal would be made.
Let me assure you, it would. 7 years of being in the bottom 1/3 of the league standings and and equal chance at the 30th pick as the 1st in our first year of "rebuilding"? It's a big deal to the future of this franchise whether you think so or not.

If you're so interested in "fairness" then you have to skip this year's draft and allow the draft order to be set by a season of games. That would be my first choice.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:52 PM
  #100
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,148
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zopust
Last time I checked, the 2004-2005 season didn't happen.

You seem prepared to work from a composite of one, extrapolating from the previous season. Interesting.
Riiiight. And I'm not claiming the Rangers should get a better pick than they did in the 04' draft.

If the Rangers had made some miracle run to the Cup final in the 04-05 season, I believe the majority of fans on this board would not calling for an unweighted lottery.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 07-07-2005 at 01:58 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.